Y’know, I’ve been doing this astronomy and space outreach thing for a long time now, and on my best days I might get close to an answer like this. But Neil cranks them out effortlessly. He’s really, really good at this.

When I turned 58 and lost my last job to a computer program, and couldn’t get another to save my standard of living, I began surfing the internet seriously, because I had the time;

In the intervening 6 years I have learned more about the cosmos, and my place in it, than I had in the previous 58 years; to learn that I am made up of Atoms, that were only theory just over 100 years ago, and that those Atoms are made up of smaller particles, where the space between is empty, and make up the majority of an Atom’s composition, is humbling;

To learn that the very Atoms are the remains of Stars at the end of their life cycle, and how that all came about and was discovered, from the curiosity of scientists and their ingenuity in researching that curiosity, over less than 100 years, is awe inspiring;

For me, I have determined one of the things I want to do in the next 6 years, is learn the mathematics and the method of thinking that produced this Physics/Cosmology, with no other reason in view, than to see the beauty of the Cosmos, and the near future, that this beauty will be used to create by the next few generations;

We are a young civilization, barely nine thousand years old; where will we be in another nine thousand years; it boggles the mind;

I like his words, to be sure. But his delivery (knowing when to pause, when to emphasize, when to accelerate or decelerate his pace, and when to summon gravitas) is why he works for me. He often treads the fine line between prose and poetry. Plus, he’s got a great sense of humor, and unflinchingly expresses opinions that may ruffle feathers. What’s not to like?

@12 – Because they’re idiots? Not really kidding here. Anyone who watches or listens to NDGT probably already knows something about him and is predisposed to agree with him, generally speaking (believes in scientific method, etc.). Miley Cyrus fans are probably from a wider spectrum of belief systems since her primary social outreach is not in astrophysics, but is instead….what again?

@ 17 artbot
I have heard it postulated that 50 % of western society still believes the PRE-Dawinian roots of Humanities origins, and a large percentage of people distrust anyone with a university degree, as over educated; it is little wonder at the reaction of Miley Cyrus’s Fan Base; in contrast, I am happy to have heard that she is at least open to the idea; perhaps she has influenced a few who were on the edge of reason it gives me hope for the future when someone of celebrity status, goes public with science;

I remember when I first learned we were made from the “guts” of stars, and I was so amazed I wrote it down so I could tell people later.

@D. Cadman (14). I like that response;that eagerness to learn, that love for learning. Were that more people displayed that love. I found your response almost as inspiring as Neil’s (maybe if you included a sound track with it…. )

Well said, Dr. Tyson. As a human being who is now much closer to death than my birth in the distant past, this is a sentiment I’ve always hoped would be a comfort to me if I have to face the prospect of my demise. I’m not sure how I’ll react to impending death, but I sincerely hope the fact that the make-up of my body will be eventually returning to my natural state as star dust will help ease the anxiety of the grave. Being a part of this beautiful universe in any manifestation is a very cool thing. And I will thank science for giving me that small favor, I hope.

. . . to learn that I am made up of Atoms, that were only theory just over 100 years ago, . . .

I don’t know what you are trying to say here.

Atoms are still “only” theory, since there exists no such thing as absolute empirical proof of a positive statement. (Consider, if you will, how to set about proving that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that you exist).

However, in science there is no such thing as “only” a theory.

A theory, in science, is an explanation for a phenomenon or set of phenomena that is logically consistent and is supported by observation and/or experiment. Atomic theory is supported by immense amounts of evidence, and is contradicted by none, but it will never change from being a theory, because “theory” is pretty much the pinnacle of achievement in science.

Laws, by contrast, describe how phenomena behave but do not explain them.

@ 18 D Cadman
“I have heard it postulated that 50 % of western society still believes the PRE-Dawinian roots of Humanities origins”

If you mistakenly wrote “western society” when you really meant “the U.S.”, that’s almost correct; only about 40% believes evolution to be correct. In most of Europe (and last I checked we’re still part of “western society”) though, the percentage is about 80%.

“A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden.”

I liked that he used the analogy, “their enriched guts,” contrary to BJN #2 misquoting by saying “star guts.” One of guts definitions is: essence. From its bowels, now enriched. I think Tyson stated how we are connected to the universe simply and succinctly, which is what he is good at since he mainly speaks to the non-scientist audience through public outreach.

I’d like to hear him talk about neutrinos passing through everything too. Phil, you do do this as well too, it’s just you don’t make videos with this Saganesque documentary type of speaking in a very designed video. You come off more in a kind of fun way, and that’s your style.

A nice video to wake up to in the morning. I am an atheist because it’s this type of feeling connected that comforts me enough…that we are part of the continuum of Nature. The awe of our understanding these things helps me have faith in the self-directed nature of humans. There’s always more to learn; some of us will progress in our thinking, others won’t. Thank you Dr. Tyson!

Beautiful. As if I really needed another reason to love Neil deGrasse Tyson. I can forgive him for Pluto, because he does so much good; we need more people to listen to him!

There was a similar sentiment expressed also on Babylon 5. Delenn (Minbari ambassador) said on more than one occasion that “we are star-stuff”, and apparently it was a common sentiment among her species, which had become spacefaring long before we did. I don’t know what the most astounding fact for me is, but Tyson has picked a damn good one here. Knowing that our atoms were born in the Big Bang and in the hearts of stars and the roaring destruction of supernovas . . . that’s pretty incredible. The long journey that our constituent particles have been on, of which we are but a tiny portion. Or, the long journey that we, as this collection of particles, will continue to live, as our particles move onwards. When we have children, we gift them a small measure of ourselves, of our particles. So our particles continue on in an endless journey, and it is beautiful.

If more people put importance and funding into science, the world would be such a better place. We are connected on the grandest scales of the universe, yet we sit and bicker about the unbelievably small.

Interesting, although I could’ve done without the craptastic music at the end. Coldplay, was it?

Anyway, so my question is: I know I came from the stars but where will my atoms end up? After I die and I’m cremated, my molecules will disperse and decay. And then where will my atoms go? Will they exist forever? Will they end up back in the stars somewhere?

That is truly my idea of heaven, to have a few of my atoms end up living eternally

in my uneducated way, (I have heard about those Greeks btw ) I was trying to say, that just over a hundred years ago, the “idea” of atoms was all we had, there was no experimental proof that they existed at all; it took the 20th century and the great minds of physics to determine the fact of their existence, if only by inference (Heisneburg ?) please cut me some slack eh! I didn’t get past high school, which was 1964
when you think of the strides we have made in that 100 years, in all areas of science, and the cuts that have been made in investment in the past 30-50 years, not just in the US, (I am in Canada) but the rest of the western world, since the west won the cold war, it is still amazing the scope of change that has occurred, and will occur in the near future;
while I hope to be around for another 30 years, I believe that in my life so far, we have seen an acceleration of change that is comparable to the innovations of the Neolithic Farming revolution, 9000 years ago; I look forward to the future with great anticipation;

and no, there will be no sound track LOL but I am as passionate about the future as I am about the past, being self “educated” in both; one’s education should never need to be tied to a piece of paper, but be a life long passion; the worst thing we can do is tie a child’s mind to a piece of paper, and say, this is the sum total of your education; a child’s mind is naturally inquisitive and will roam where ever it will, unless put in a box by narrow minded individuals;

If I read comment #14 aright, that commenter was not claiming that atomic theory was 100 years old, but was saying that until 100 years ago, atoms were “only” theoretical. It is, of course, this latter point with which I take issue.

For your further edification, then:
Through much of the 19th century, there was sufficient evidence to accept the existence of atoms. In fact, it could be argued that the first convincing evidence for atoms was acquired by Antione Lavoisier in the latter half of the 18th century.

Furthermore, the first sub-atomic particle, the electron, was discovered as a discrete entity in 1896, although it had been known (as “cathode rays”) since about 1870. So it has been known for over 100 years that what we know of as atoms are not indivisible.